Individual Freedom Podcast

Freedom Forum Radio features special guest
Michael Maharrey, National Communications
Director for the Tenth Amendment Center.

Summary of Our Thoughts on Nullification

After the American Revolutionary War, our founders, having just thrown off the yoke of British oppression, understood that the citizens of our new nation must always retain the right and the means to prevent the rise of any future tyranny. The Constitution and Bill of Rights strictly limit the power of the central government while reserving for the states and the people of the states the authority to restrain and punish the federal government when it oversteps its constitutional limits.

The ratifiers of the Constitution gave us mechanisms to enforce this restriction on federal authority. The powers granted to the central government were specifically limited to those enumerated in Article I, Section 8, and, by the Tenth Amendment, the states or their citizens retained whatever powers were not listed.

In their writings and speeches, those who ratified the Constitution made it clear and obvious that the federal government is the creation of the states, not their equal partner in constitutional authority. As with any contract between equal partners, the parties may refuse to comply with any edict that falls outside the parameters outlined in the original agreement. In addition, any entity created by those equal parties cannot blatantly disregard the restrictions imposed on it by those that created the entity in the first place.

This concept was clearly reaffirmed by the states in their ratifying documents as well as by the men who wrote the Constitution and championed its ratification by the colonies.

“Where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy: that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact, (casus non fœderis) to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits: that without this right, they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them“

~Thomas Jefferson

The last refuge for those who deny the legality and constitutionality of the nullification process is the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, which states:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof…shall be the supreme Law of the Land.

By this standard, a federal act can only be considered “the supreme law of the land” if it has been made “in pursuance” of the Constitution; that is, the act must comply with the limitations on the federal power spelled out in the Constitution.

Students are taught that, according to the Constitution, the Supreme Court has the authority to interpret the Constitution and to decide on the constitutionality of laws, rules, and regulations enacted by the federal government and/or any of its agents.

This is, in fact, not true.

Like Congress and the Executive Branch, the Supreme Court is a creation of the States, not their equal partner. If the federal government could use the Supreme Court, one of its branches, to define the extent of its own authority, there would effectively be absolutely no limit on federal power. The people would, therefore, be left defenseless and without remedy when that government exercises powers it was never meant to have in the first place.

St. George Tucker, who wrote the first commentary on the Constitution in 1803, gave this explanation:

“The Federal Government is the creature of the States. It is not a party to the Constitution, but the result of it – the creation of that agreement which was made by the States as parties. It is a mere agent, entrusted with limited powers for certain objects; which powers and objects are enumerated in the Constitution. Shall the agent be permitted to judge of the extent of his own powers, without reference to his constituent?”

That the doctrine of nullification may be clearly understood it must be taken as laid down in the Report of a special committee of the House of Representatives of S. C. in 1828. In that document it is asserted, that a single State has a constitutional right to arrest the execution of a law of the U. S. within its limits; that the arrest is to be presumed right and valid, and is to remain in force unless ¾ of the States, in a Convention, shall otherwise decide.

Nullification was viewed by those who wrote our Constitution as the final resort and rightful remedy of the States and their citizens to prevent the federal government from exceeding the limits of its constitutionally mandated power and, thereby, stealing our rights and our freedoms.

~ Dr Dan and Michael Maharrey

Mike Maharrey is the National Communications Director for the Tenth Amendment Center. He earned a B.A. in Mass Communications and Media Studies from the University of South Florida St. Petersburg. Mike has covered local and state politics for several publications in both Kentucky and Florida, and won two Kentucky Press Association awards as a sports writer in 2009.

Mike currently produces web content for a Lexington television station and is author of Our Last Hope: Rediscovering the lost path to liberty, a book about the concept of constitutional nullification as a means to rein in out of control big government and usurpation of states’ rights and liberty.

A native Kentuckian and an adopted Floridian, Mike currently lives in Lexington with his wife and three children. A long time hockey player, he is equally passionate about protecting and preserving the Constitution and keeping pucks out of his net on the ice.

Join us for this fascinating and informative four-part interview with Michael Maharrey as we discuss Nullification as the Rightful remedy for the States and their citizens to stop the abuse and usurpation of power by the federal government. Tune in at WJRB-FM 95.1 FM or LISTEN LIVEon the Internet. This program is available via PODCAST.

The discussion about Nullification with Mike Maharrey on Freedom Forum Radio is based on using the authority of the states and their citizens guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment to restrain the Federal Government when it oversteps the enumerated powers granted to it by Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. In the States vs Federal Government relationship, the limits on federal authority were determined by the states in a written contract, The Constitution. With Nullification, the states are saying to the federal government, “We did not give you the power to do that. That power belongs to us. Stop immediately.” Nullification can proceed in several different ways; e.g., passive resistance, civil disobedience, legal action, and state legislation directly negating federal laws.

The relationship between local voters and local government is, by implication, similar to that between the states and the federal government, but it may not have been legally spelled out in the same way. That is to say, because local government officials are elected by the voters, those voters have the same implied legal power to negate laws/regulations with which they disagree. In addition, the tactics outlined above can also be used on at the local level to “nullify” laws/regulations of a town, city, or county government if the majority of citizens truly object.

The act of nullification is no different than a parent saying “no” to a child, and, at all levels, citizens like parents have many tools to use in enforcing their control.

The only thing Marx was right about is that there IS an alienation of the proletariat, and it is the responsibility of the richer classes to keep their ostentatious behavior to a tolerable level, or else they taunt and risk the madding crowd.

Mix that with central government, fixed banking, and corrupt media, and you have the making for a return to the feudal system, both economically and socially. Unfortunately, people WILL listen to horse manure about being cared for, and will give up their autonomy for a hot meal. It’s called “taking the mark.”

I blame not evil for being evil, but government for enabling and empowering evil. And whether or not voting actually works, we ARE the people. So, it comes back to that, does it? Mandatory voting, more representatives in the House, 17th Amendment overturned.

While I thank you for your commentary, its lack of content and its rude tone merely demonstrate the failure of meaningful and courteous discourse that characterizes so much of today’s political discussion.

In the newsletter post and the radio program content, Michael Maharrey and Dr. Dan present a historical and constitutional argument in support of nullification as the rightful remedy for a central government out of control. It is completely within your right to debate, point by point, that argument. In fact, we would welcome such a discussion so we could understand to what specific points you are objecting. There is nothing “ignorant” about discussing an issue using historical fact, quotations
from key sources, and logical conclusions.

The Five Finger Lifestyle

If you are overweight and you want to lose excess pounds to improve your health and physical appearance . . .

If you are diabetic with poorly controlled blood sugars and you are determined to take charge of your disease, reduce your blood sugar to the normal range, and try to prevent the debilitating and disabling complications of diabetes . . .

Like us on Facebook

For centuries, human beings, inquisitive by disposition and design, have sought to understand the workings of the natural world in which they live. Scientists, observing these same events, are driven by the demands of scientific inquiry to study natural events and explain how they occur so that thi...

A true American H E R O . . . ...

The color of your aura can tell a lot about you. Click here to see yours: bit.ly/aura-11

For those in the area, this is a fantastic show! Outstanding performance by Dan Fisher . . . The story of America’s patriot preachers in the mid-1700s and how they shaped the future of a new nation. For more information drdansfreedomforum.com/brr/...